or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 3

post #41 of 294
Just read this thread and needed to chime in...

First, there are plenty of flood stories around the world, in other non-Christian cultures, as can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
But they're not all the same story. However, the flood itself is a common thread. Does that mean there was one? Since we have not found actual physical proof of this, most likely the answer is no. Even when I *was* a Christian, I did not literally believe in this story, but treated it as a metaphor to show me both how God can be angry and merciful.

My second point is that it *IS* only a small proportion of Christians in the US that believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally, and I wish I knew more about how this variant of belief emerged. The Jews have had the Torah for about 3,000 years longer than Christians, and they sure don't take all these stories as literal truth, but as TRUTH as only myth can teach. Reading between the lines, etc. And as a linguist who understands the issues behind translation, which version is to be taken literally anyway? Mistakes were made by scribes through the ages, and by translators wishing to appease their benefactors (King James Bible, anyone?). My formerly Jewish husband looks utterly appalled when I show him English translations of the OT.

So in my viewpoint, as a linguist, as having studied many different types of Christian theologies (informing my own decision to leave, to be fair), I can quite honestly say that I don't think the Flood story supports the literal Creationist story, because the story of Creation was never meant to be interpreted that way in the first place. Trying to reconcile the Flood story with Creationism is bound to lead to such puzzling and illogical conclusions, such as those outlined here. An evolutionary account of things connects the two stories much better (though gives no more impetus to read them literally), and in no way detracts from belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.
post #42 of 294
I'm not Christian, and don't belive the bible at all but I've always wondered, for those who do belive, what happened to all the plants? 40 days under water is not going to be all that good for a pine tree, they need air circulation too.
post #43 of 294
You know, while you guys are on this topic, could someone give me an insight into explaining antibiotic resistance to people who refuse to acknowledge evolution in ANY form? I was trying to explain this to my FIL and he didn't understand, and I finally realized that the reason he didn't understand is that he doesn't believe in evolution, and antibiotic resistance is most easily explained as evolution in action. :
post #44 of 294
post #45 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by witchygrrl View Post
... belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.

Fine post. Am only quibbling with this ... maybe if you meant to refer to the three Abrahamic religions you should have said "Jewish-Christian-Muslim." Unless you only meant to refer to "Christian-Muslim."

The "Judeo" thing is a touchy one. Actually offensive to many. As is the reference to the "OT."

Okay?

Thanks.













We're all learning.
post #46 of 294
Let's see if I can try and explain this from a Muslim standpoint. There is no concept of six days of creation in Islam. The term used is yawm... which means an eon. So, you don't hear people debating the literal day thingie.

Here's an article on the concept of evolution in Islam. Basically, it's perfectly fine to believe in that... and even Islamic too. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/...ality/id/50457

It talks about four different categories of creation.. and how God created man specifically because he wanted to be known.
Quote:
"According to a hadith (tradition of the Prophet Muhammad) God said: "I was a hidden treasure. Then I wanted to be known and I created human beings." Among all the creations man alone has the capability "to know" and conceptualise. God has created man for this purpose. Realisation of God brings divine blessings."
Then it talks about how they used to artificially pollinate the date trees in Medina... and the Prophet saw this one day, and said he didn't think it would benefit them. The date yield was very poor that year... and basically the Prophet said it was only an opinion... and that they know better about worldly affairs.
Quote:
"According to this tradition, worldly affairs like horticulture, agriculture, engineering, architecture, irrigation and, of course, all the disciplines dealing with life sciences fall into the category of Al-Maruf (the good). Hence, whatever is proved to be good for mankind by scientific research and experience will also be regarded as good in Islam. There is no contradiction between Islam and facts proved by any branch of science, including the biological sciences."
As for creation and such, the Qur'an mentions that the Universe is constantly expanding (which Scientists these days believe, but I doubt many (if any) believed back in the 7th century. )
Quote:
"...And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)
It also talks about the Big Bang theory, so to speak (or many believe it does):
Quote:
""Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30).
Qur'an also talks about the end of the Universe (Big Crunch theory) being when it folds up upon itself...

Quote:
"That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do. (Qur'an, 21:104)"
As for Noah and the flood, in the Qur'an it basically is the same as in Genesis although it is viewed as a local/regional event rather than a worldwide flood. Basically, it affects only "the people of Nuh" (Nuh=Noah) who rejected Noah as a Prophet.
post #47 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
Fine post. Am only quibbling with this ... maybe if you meant to refer to the three Abrahamic religions you should have said "Jewish-Christian-Muslim." Unless you only meant to refer to "Christian-Muslim."

The "Judeo" thing is a touchy one. Actually offensive to many. As is the reference to the "OT."

Okay?

Thanks.




We're all learning.

I can totally understand the first problem you had, but not so much the second. Perhaps you can be more illuminating? When I used the term "OT" it was merely because I had been showing my husband an English translation of the first part of the Christian Bible, which is way different than his copy of the Torah. I was simply trying to distinguish between the two.

Just wanting to understand, never trying to offend. Apologies given now, just in case.
post #48 of 294
I am a bible-beliveing Christian and I belive in Noah's ark and micro-evolution.

Quote:
You know, while you guys are on this topic, could someone give me an insight into explaining antibiotic resistance to people who refuse to acknowledge evolution in ANY form? I was trying to explain this to my FIL and he didn't understand, and I finally realized that the reason he didn't understand is that he doesn't believe in evolution, and antibiotic resistance is most easily explained as evolution in action.
Micro-evolution is evolution within a species and we can observe that in nature today. Does he not believe this because he is a Christian? There are Christian books and web articles that explain that micro fits into a biblical worldview. Like the story of the peppered moths.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

About the days of creation. I am not sure if they were literal 24 hour days or millions of years. For me, there is so much evidence that the Bible is true that I don't have a hard time accpecpting some things, that seem impossible, by faith. And as Usami said, I always pictured the flood as a regional event and not worldwide, but I have not really taken a lot of time to study it.

Jen
post #49 of 294
:
post #50 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
So, there was one feline couple, not house cats, lions, tigers, etc., and there was one or two rodent types, not the thousands of separate rodents we see alive today, and so on. This makes the story of Noah's ark possible because then there were not an overwhelming amount of animals on the ark, and though the animals that were there would not have been cared for properly by only 8 people, it is in the realm of possibility that they may have survived.

But, this means that evolution did indeed take place. Not just evolution that happens very slowly over the course of millions of years, but extremely rapid evolution that happened in only about 5000 years : If we start with one feline pair and from that pair we see all the different species and subspecies of felines around today, that is rapid evolution. f all felines came from one feline, that is evolution, which is what the fossil records show happened. How do Christians that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible reconcile this?
I believe you have the term 'evloution' confused with the ideas of adaptation and/or selective breeding.

Evolution means the ability of one animal to CHANGE into another, different animal.

In other words, those felines are just different KINDS of felines, but they are all still felines. The fact that they may or may not have sterile breeding capabilites across certain breeds of felines does not change the fact that they are still feline, and a feline will NEVER CHANGE into any other KIND of animal, such as a horse or a rooster.

Also, the notion of "adaptation" is simply that of a certain KIND of animal developing an adaptation that is beneficial to it's area, say a darker coat or larger size. Hence, the variety in breeds of birds, but they are all still BIRDS. You will never see a bird change into an alligator.

There has never been any evidence of any creature 'changing' into another creature in the fossil record.

There are good books on this topic.
post #51 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
You know, while you guys are on this topic, could someone give me an insight into explaining antibiotic resistance to people who refuse to acknowledge evolution in ANY form? I was trying to explain this to my FIL and he didn't understand, and I finally realized that the reason he didn't understand is that he doesn't believe in evolution, and antibiotic resistance is most easily explained as evolution in action. :
Again, as I just posted, this is ADAPTATION, not 'evolution.'

A bacteria may change it's protein coat, but it will NEVER become anything other than another bacteria when it reproduces.
post #52 of 294
I have both of these books, and they are excellent:

The Evolution Hoax Exposed

Genesis Flood
post #53 of 294


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_052_05.html

Quote:
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr4 called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases.
post #54 of 294
from actionbiosience.org

Quote:
Ring species provide strong evidence for evolution causing the appearance of new species, demonstrating that many small changes can eventually accumulate into large differences between distinct species. Some critics of evolutionary theory think that evolution can only cause limited change within a species and cannot lead to the evolution of new species. Ring species show that they are wrong; variation between species is qualitatively similar, though different in degree, to variation within a species.
post #55 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
Evolution means the ability of one animal to CHANGE into another, different animal.
Um, no, actually, it doesn't. Evolution is change, yes, but a cow into a newt? Please.

Quote:
In other words, those felines are just different KINDS of felines, but they are all still felines. The fact that they may or may not have sterile breeding capabilites across certain breeds of felines does not change the fact that they are still feline, and a feline will NEVER CHANGE into any other KIND of animal, such as a horse or a rooster.
The fact that they can't breed with one another is actually what makes them different species. If horses and roosters could have babies together, they'd be the same species by definition, despite the fact that one lactates and one lays eggs.

Quote:
Also, the notion of "adaptation" is simply that of a certain KIND of animal developing an adaptation that is beneficial to it's area, say a darker coat or larger size. Hence, the variety in breeds of birds, but they are all still BIRDS. You will never see a bird change into an alligator.
Adaptation is different from evolution, yes; evolution involves becoming a different, less-than-compatible species. Adaptation does not. There's a HECK of a lot more than adaptation going on, and always has been.

Quote:
There has never been any evidence of any creature 'changing' into another creature in the fossil record.
Yeah, but... nobody's ever said that cows turn into ducks or anything like that.

Quote:
There are good books on this topic.
I've read Of Pandas and People. I wouldn't call it "good;" it demonstrated a decidedly unsophisticated understanding of genetics, and the same (incorrect) definition of evolution that you're using. The fossil record is actually remarkably clear on the subject of evolution. You just have to, you know, a) look and b) know what "evolution" actually entails.
post #56 of 294
Hm, Stacy, can you clarify what you mean by this statement, then I will be able to answer it

Quote:
There has never been any evidence of any creature 'changing' into another creature in the fossil record.
As far as I know there is plenty of such evidence. What kind of evidence are you looking for, I will try to supply it. I'm not sure how it isn't clear, as I have seen alot of such evidence. Are you looking for an animated fossil? Or some other such impossible thing? tell me what is lacking (in your mind/experience) and I will surely provide it. I will be more than happy to as I love this stuff.
post #57 of 294
Not to mention the DNA sampling from prehistoric samples which is used to show the evolution between species.
post #58 of 294
Again

Quote:
In other words, those felines are just different KINDS of felines, but they are all still felines. The fact that they may or may not have sterile breeding capabilites across certain breeds of felines does not change the fact that they are still feline, and a feline will NEVER CHANGE into any other KIND of animal, such as a horse or a rooster.
feline is just a word that humans have assigned this group of animals that they have decided are related, or at least similar, in some way. There is nothing infalliable about these kinds of classifications. In fact, before DNA was something we were able to study animals were put into classifications and now we know that "technically" some are actually wrong. But we keep their names, for the most part, because we are used to them. There is nothing about these older clssifications that makes them always and forever correct.
post #59 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
Adaptation is different from evolution, yes; evolution involves becoming a different, less-than-compatible species. Adaptation does not. There's a HECK of a lot more than adaptation going on, and always has been.

Yeah, but... nobody's ever said that cows turn into ducks or anything like that.
Really? So, you never watched Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series where he has the animation of the first single-celled organism then turning into every kind of species on the earth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
The fossil record is actually remarkably clear on the subject of evolution. You just have to, you know, a) look and b) know what "evolution" actually entails.

Yes, my BS was in Biology, and my junior year I took an entire class on evolution, so I am quite sure I know what it "actually entails."
post #60 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
As far as I know there is plenty of such evidence. What kind of evidence are you looking for, I will try to supply it. I'm not sure how it isn't clear, as I have seen alot of such evidence.
Please, post whatever you like - feel free - you have carte blanche!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ?